Athletics and the bond issue
Feb. 26, 2008 @ 11:50 a.m. by Joannaby joanna
So I’m trying to come up with something funny or interesting to say on this blog. Instead I’m going to try an issue here. I’m currently immersed in a set of stories regarding the bond issue and athletics, and I’m curious to get your thoughts on this topic.
Are athletics necessary in high school? Should the bond issue pay for improvements to the athletic facilities? What needs to be fixed?
Tell me your thoughts. I’d love to hear them.
This bond issue is a hot topic right now. We’ve heard from a variety of people who have different thoughts on it, ranging from athletics shouldn’t be included to why are we having another bond issue so soon to comparisons with the suburbs.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I feel there should be athletics in high schools. It does wonders to keep some kids on track in high school and sometimes college. I think schools like Southeast, West, East, and North should recieve the majority of the money. I am in no way a expert on this bond issue but this is my opinion. These are the schools with the athletic facilities that are not up tp “par” with the rest of the city. Heights a football field, Northwest, South, Kapaun, Carroll all do to.the other schools have no “house” during the season. Same with Baseball, Wests field is horrible.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Are athletics necessary in high school? You do know that covering high school sports is your job, right?
February 26th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Every city school needs some upgrades if they even want to get close to the likes of Goddard, Maize or the Andovers. With the level of athletes they have you would think they would want better facilities to showcase these athletes.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Athletics necessary in HS? How about music/band, theatre, art, etc.? When it comes to the development of children, I would say they are all necessary to give every child the chance to express/improve their talents/abilities and character. I guess it’s no surprise to me that we lag in comparison to surrounding schools. Having been to a lot of city league games, the support is not that great (some schools worse than others). It’s just sorry to see 1/4 of the stands full on a Friday night basketball or football game. At surrounding schools it’s almost always packed. Plus I don’t think it helps when the superintendent isn’t a big fan of sports. Would new/updated facilities improve school pride, support, and participation? I don’t know. But it sure would be nice if all the student athletes were treated equally, given facilities matching that of NW or Heights. For instance, imagine if North soccer athletes not having to drive 2 miles up the road for practice every day, or softball, baseball, tennis athletes not having to worry about foul balls crossing over, raining down on them. I know it may sound trivial to some. Unfortunately, it seems the consensus is that we’re getting by with what we have, so why change.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:23 am
It shouldn’t matter to have equivalent facilities, but it does. If a family is moving to the area and they see the facilities Wichita has and the facilities suburban schools have, where are they likely to settle if they have a choice? Wichita has a few first class facilities, but not many. I think we need to establish two showcase football stadiums for the district (probably an upgraded Carpenter and one new one), have a serviceable swimming pool at each school (at least large enough to hold practices, PE classes and dual meets), a track that is good enough for practice and small meets, a soccer field good enough to host games, and an attractive gym for basketball, volleyball and wrestling. We don’t need on-campus stadiums or courts for baseball, softball or tennis (though there need to be adequate practice facilities) - the venues being used now are good ones.